An Apology to Gay Latter-day Saints

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes there are those that disrespect the straight community as well.  Many of them feel very disrespected and lash out inappropriately at times.  Two wrongs have never made a right.  

You are right, two wrongs don't make a right, but you seem to be making an excuse for such behavior. So, once again, please. How does "same sex attraction" sound like an affliction, and being called "straight, heterosexual, or even opposite sex attraction", sound like an affliction? You can't have it both ways, CA. Simply put, anyone looking to be offended will find even a "hello" offensive. 

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You are right, two wrongs don't make a right, but you seem to be making an excuse for such behavior. So, once again, please. How does "same sex attraction" sound like an affliction, and being called "straight, heterosexual, or even opposite sex attraction", sound like an affliction? You can't have it both ways, CA. Simply put, anyone looking to be offended will find even a "hello" offensive. 

Someone doesn't have the gay, or have the straight or have the heterosexual.  And someone doesn't have SSA.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Someone doesn't have the gay, or have the straight or have the heterosexual.  And someone doesn't have SSA.  

So with that cryptic response, should we have everyone fill out a questionnaire to know how to address them? Have I not earned enough respect for you to get a "straight" (pardon the pun) answer?   

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

So with that cryptic response, should we have everyone fill out a questionnaire to know how to address them? Have I not earned enough respect for you to get a "straight" (pardon the pun) answer?   

Sorry Bill, I am not going to fight about this. If you don't understand the last post, then you aren't really trying hard to understand. If you think I am just being sensitive, then that is your decision.

[Calm]

 

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Someone doesn't have the gay, or have the straight or have the heterosexual.  And someone doesn't have SSA.  

So sexual attraction is not a pattern of feelings in your view?  Trying to understand.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Someone doesn't have the gay, or have the straight or have the heterosexual.  And someone doesn't have SSA.  

So those homosexual people who prefer to use the term SSA are wrong?

[Guest]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Sorry Bill, I am not going to fight about this. If you don't understand the last post, then you aren't really trying hard to understand. If you think I am just being sensitive, then that is your decision.

I do not wish to fight. I am trying to understand your post. I don't want to seem to imply that there are more labels where people can understand. I am seeking completely to understand your answers and, do not wish to harm you my old friend. I have always sought to be kind, and understanding, but most of be. as cordial on all things. I have always sought your friend.

Had to do an edit, I was up too long making replies. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You are right, two wrongs don't make a right, but you seem to be making an excuse for such behavior. So, once again, please. How does "same sex attraction" sound like an affliction, and being called "straight, heterosexual, or even opposite sex attraction", sound like an affliction? You can't have it both ways, CA. Simply put, anyone looking to be offended will find even a "hello" offensive. 

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 

So sexual attraction is not a pattern of feelings in your view?  Trying to understand.

 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

So those homosexual people who prefer to use the term SSA are wrong?

Read this article and it may help you understand california boy's resistance to SSA. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-q-and-a/sexuality/same-sex-attractions-and-sexual-identity 

[SouthernMo]

Why don’t we just try our best to call people by the labels they want to be called, and if we inadvertently call them by a label they don’t want to be called, then quickly apologize and change?

If Mormons don’t want to be called Mormons, don’t do it. If someone doesn’t want to be labeled with ‘same sex attraction’ don’t do it.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

 

Read this article and it may help you understand california boy's resistance to SSA. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-q-and-a/sexuality/same-sex-attractions-and-sexual-identity 

 Tacenda, could you please help me understand what specifically in that article you find offensive or unkind? 

I read that attractions don't determine identity. True. I read that the goal of the article was to reduce shame and feeling a need to hide. That's a healthy message.  

Where's the offense?

[Tacenda]

Just now, kllindley said:

 Tacenda, could you please help me understand what specifically in that article you find offensive or unkind? 

I read that attractions don't determine identity. True. I read that the goal of the article was to reduce shame and feeling a need to hide. That's a healthy message.  

Where's the offense?

To me, when people say someone has SSA, they are lessening the identity to mean more feelings and not something more concrete, such as someone that has been that way ever since they can remember, even before they had sexual feelings. But California put it best when he said you can't have "gay" or "straight" like you have "same sex attraction", you just are gay or straight or bisexual, for that matter. So saying gays are same sex attracted seems to be saying they really aren't gay, in a way or they can be changed.

[kllindley]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

To me, when people say someone has SSA, they are lessening the identity to mean more feelings and not something more concrete, such as someone that has been that way ever since they can remember, even before they had sexual feelings. But California put it best when he said you can't have "gay" or "straight" like you have "same sex attraction", you just are gay or straight or bisexual, for that matter. So saying gays are same sex attracted seems to be saying they really aren't gay, in a way or they can be changed.

But the article didn't say they can't be changed. It said behaviors can be managed. 

I agree that same-sex attraction is about the feelings not the identity. And yes. Using that phrase to describe the feelings does lessen the identity. I think what we are saying is that this narrative about "gay" being something concrete that is "just the way a person is and always has been," is not supported by the research. 

Identity is a perfectly valid component of sexuality. It's how we choose to see ourselves and present ourselves to the world.  Many people identify as gay or lesbian or straight or LGBT. And I believe we should respect them. SSA is not a way to refer to a person unless they so request. I would never say "That person is SSA."  But I wouldn't fall them gay is the don't feel like that identity label fits them. Again:  Identity is a perfectly valid component of sexuality and it does not need to steal from attraction to bolster itself. 

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

 

Read this article and it may help you understand california boy's resistance to SSA. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-q-and-a/sexuality/same-sex-attractions-and-sexual-identity 

If someone doesn't like the term, I don't take issue with that.  My argument is with the claim the Church and/or conservative Christians started the usage and are the only ones to use the term.  It is all through the academic literature and has been for quite some time.  It is even used at times by gay activists, such as Lisa Diamond, the academic whose work on sexual fluidity referred to by myself and others on this board.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

....................................................

But I agree with the premise of the OP-that for the most part people should get to define or label themselves (to a point-sometimes people have legit mental illnesses and we shouldn't necessarily feed into mental delusions).

Very few of us call people by their "correct" names, adopting nicknames or other designations taken from history.  For example, the people of Sweden do not call their own country "Sweden."  That is something done by non-Swedes.  Swedes call their own country "Sverige."  Same applies to Finland, which the people of Finland call "Suomi."  Same applies to Germany.  Germans call their country "Deutschland."  Mexicans do  not call their country 'Meksiko."  That is what Norte Americanos (Anglos) call it.  They pronounce the word "México" (Mejico), from the Aztec Meshika.  However, the official name of the country is Estados Unidos de México = The United States of Mexico.  The capital of the country is the Distrito Federal (DF) = Federal District.  How many of us show enough respect for such countries to call them by their real names?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

......... same-sex attraction is about the feelings not the identity. .............................

If so, then why does it seem so important to some people?  When I think of Leonardo da Vinci or of Ellen de Generis, I am not at all concerned with their gender preference.  What matters to me is their art and other powerful qualities which I find very important.  Da Vinci was a genius at studying and drawing human anatomy, portraiture, engineering, etc.  De Generis is a brilliant comedienne.  If either one of them started discussing their sexploits, I would tune them out.  Doesn't interest me.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

 

So sexual attraction is not a pattern of feelings in your view?  Trying to understand.

It is how it is used that is irritating to the gay community.  I am sexually attracted to the same sex is different than saying I HAVE same sex attraction. But honestly, even saying I am sexually attracted to the same sex is not something that people say.  For most of the rest of the world, when someone is attracted to someone of the same sex, they simply say I am gay.  That is exactly what the word means.  That is exactly how the word is understood to everyone else.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

So those homosexual people who prefer to use the term SSA are wrong?

As I said earlier, if someone prefers to use the term SSA and has expressed that is their preference, then, like the church stating how it prefers to be addressed, the polite thing to do is to honor their request.  

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Reject all you want.  We started it and other conservative Christians picked it up.

I find it mildly surprising that any conservative Christians would pick anything up from us. 

This actually strikes me as just one more unverifiable canard against the church.  So, I'd like for you to document your accusation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints originated the term "same-sex attraction".  CFR, please.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Why don’t we just try our best to call people by the labels they want to be called, and if we inadvertently call them by a label they don’t want to be called, then quickly apologize and change?

If Mormons don’t want to be called Mormons, don’t do it. If someone doesn’t want to be labeled with ‘same sex attraction’ don’t do it.

If someone has a characteristic, if it offends them to be reminded of it, by all means don't do it.  But just because a redhead gets incensed that someone refers to him or her as a "ginger", or a person whose legs are no longer functional gets angry to be labelled "paraplegic", does not mean that "ginger" or "paraplegic" is suddenly an offensive word!  

I'm getting very weary of greeting each new week with a new word, formerly descriptive and easily understood, that is suddenly offensive to someone.  Eventually, we will be reduced to grunts and howls, all descriptive words having become offensive to someone out there. 

Heck, I remember a member of my old ward getting all bent out of shape because in a lesson Sunday School lesson in which Judaism was a prominent part, people were using the word "Jew".  For some reason, and he wasn't a Jew, he thought it was an offensive word.  I am not kidding.

[Anijen]

My personal feelings is; I do not like people telling me how I should or should not speak.

You should call me this.

I shouldn't call you that.

I am offended by that term.

I am not diminishing the need for politeness or good manners and believe using proper language is good. However, being told I have to use a certain term or pronoun just irks me, not because I want to be offensive (I do not), but because I do not like being told how to speak. I guess I am still just a child who needs to grow up, but I want to grow up when I want to and not when someone tells me to...

Thinking out loud

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If someone has a characteristic, if it offends them to be reminded of it, by all means don't do it.  But just because a redhead gets incensed that someone refers to him or her as a "ginger", or a person whose legs are no longer functional gets angry to be labelled "paraplegic", does not mean that "ginger" or "paraplegic" is suddenly an offensive word!  

I'm getting very weary of greeting each new week with a new word, formerly descriptive and easily understood, that is suddenly offensive to someone.  Eventually, we will be reduced to grunts and howls, all descriptive words having become offensive to someone out there. 

Heck, I remember a member of my old ward getting all bent out of shape because in a lesson Sunday School lesson in which Judaism was a prominent part, people were using the word "Jew".  For some reason, and he wasn't a Jew, he thought it was an offensive word.  I am not kidding.

I don’t blame you for getting weary of new terms and descriptions. The term gay has been around for over a half of century. Why the need for the “has SSA” thing is beyond me especially when it is a designation coming from a group not even a part of the community.

Glad to hear you don’t approve of the church using the term 

I wish I could help you with the latest church name change thing, but you will have to take your complaint to President Nelson

Edited August 20, 2018 by california boy

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don’t blame you for getting weary of new terms and descriptions. The term gay has been around for over a half of century. Why the need for the “has SSA” thing is beyond me especially when it is a designation coming from a group not even a part of the community.

Glad to hear you don’t approve of the church using the term 

We Mormons members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do love to use unnecessarily use long and convoluted descriptors when a shorter and clearer one would work better, don't we?

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

In a private FB group I participate in, there has been a lot of discussion about the new revelation about the name of the Church.  Honestly, I'm surprised at how strongly some people feel about the issue.

One of the things that came up in discussion was the importance of calling people the name(s) they chosen for themselves.  I personaly didn't have strong feelings on the name of the Church until someone mentioned that ignoring this directive from President Nelson is extremely disrespectful to him, and the Lord's Church.  If we don't want to be called Mormons -- because it incorrect -- then others should be respectful of President Nelson's wishes and desire to get rid of the name Mormon.

But someone in our discussion brought up the term "Same-sex attracted" the term we use in the Church to describe Gay and Lesbian members.  I did a little googling and realized that, for the most part, we are the only ones who use this term.  I now believe that using this term is extremely disrespectful to LGBTQ saints.  They have expressed a desire to be called Gay and Lesbian.  And I think it shows greater respect to call someone by what they wish to be called.

So I want to apologize to LGBTQ saints for using the term "same sex attracted."  I was being disrespectful.  From now on I will only use Gay, Lesbian, or LGBTQ.

Given the recent discussion on the Church's name, is there anyone else who is going to change how they refer to gay members?

I think the bold is what is most important. I call people what they want to be called and follow their lead as to what feels correct. If that is Gay or Lesbian, so be it. If they're more comfortable with "experiencing SSA" so be it. If, in one case and journey I was apart of, it turns out to be Demi, okay. I'll respect the individual and their journey. Being mixed and ID'ing as such, this wasn't a hard concept for me. Just because we like hard fast rules to identification, doesn't mean that really captures how the individual feels about themselves and their experiences in their bodies and relationships. It may not be accurate for the person next to them, even if they have a similar relationship history and similar experiences. And it may not mean that what felt right for them yesterday will be the same tomorrow in terms of identity and experience. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think some of the problem is that, unlike the church, there is no central spokesperson to dictate issues that involve LGBTQ people.  So, we can't really know what a gay or lesbian person wants us to call them without asking them specifically.  We have a poster here who prefers the term safe-sex attracted for himself, for example.  Some LGTBQ people prefer to use the word gay while others want to be referred to as queer.  Painting with a broad brush doesn't work really well.

But I agree with the premise of the OP-that for the most part people should get to define or label themselves (to a point-sometimes people have legit mental illnesses and we shouldn't necessarily feed into mental delusions).

"Gay" used to have a pejorative connotation, but has been "reclaimed."

The U.S. organization GLAAD (formerly the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) advises the media to avoid using the term "homosexual."  "{I}t is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered."

Elsewhere, GLAAD itself uses the phrase "same-sex couple" (emphasis added):

Quote

GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Terms To Avoid

...

Offensive: "homosexual relations/relationship," "homosexual couple," "homosexual sex," etc.
Preferred: "relationship," "couple" (or, if necessary, "gay couple"), "sex," etc.

Identifying a same-sex couple as "a homosexual couple," characterizing their relationship as "a homosexual relationship," or identifying their intimacy as "homosexual sex" is extremely offensive and should be avoided.

GLAAD also uses "same-sex marriage" as a tag: https://www.glaad.org/tags/same-sex-marriage

GLAAD also uses the phrase "same-sex partner": https://www.glaad.org/blog/catholic-university-stands-professor-after-marriage-same-sex-partner

GLAAD also uses . . . you guessed it . . . "same sex attraction" (emphasis added):

Quote

In 2012, a study by Mark Regnerus and the conservative Witherspoon Institute claimed to prove that people raised by same-sex parents reported more negative experiences than those who were raised by opposite-sex parents. It quickly became clear that the Regnerus study was technically flawed and biased. The study compared people raised by opposite-sex parents in committed relationships to people raised by (often single) parents who had at one time or another experienced same-sex attraction.

The American Academy of Family Physicians also uses the phrase (emphasis added):

Quote

Phobias and Microaggressions

Non-inclusive language in clinical encounters may be viewed as microaggressions that convey negative impressions and imply it is not safe to disclose same-sex attraction or behavior

You don’t need to know a patient’s sexual orientation to create a safe space for them

The "Californai Breastfeeding Coalition," in a presentation entitled "Supporting All: The LGBTQ Community" (authored by Gail Newel, MD, Director of Obstetrics at UCSF-Fresno), we find this (emphasis added):

Quote

Lesbian
No standard definition
May include

• same-sex attraction
• same-sex sexual behavior
• self-identification as a lesbian

...

Gay
Must specify gay male in research and data collection, as LGBTQ groups may consider this an umbrella term
May include

• same-sex attraction
• same-sex sexual behavior
• self-identification
• household relationships

And then there's the Huffington Post, which published this article: "New Ideas About the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction" (emphasis added).

And the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (emphasis added): "The term ‘homosexuality’ was coined in the late 19th century by a German psychologist, Karoly Maria Benkert. Although the term is new, discussions about sexuality in general, and same-sex attraction in particular..."

And the New York Times (emphasis added): "But by the 20th century, the word had taken on a definition associated with the American Psychiatric Association’s classification of same-sex attractions as a mental disorder."

And the National Center for Biotechnology Information (speaking about a book entitled "The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding") (emphasis added): 

Quote

Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual men and women are defined according to their sexual orientation, which, as discussed in Chapter 2, is typically conceptualized in terms of sexual attraction, behavior, identity, or some combination of these dimensions. They share the fact that their sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual. Yet this grouping of “nonheterosexuals” includes men and women; homosexual and bisexual individuals; people who label themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, among other terms; and people who do not adopt such labels but nevertheless experience same-sex attraction or engage in same-sex sexual behavior.

And the BBC (emphasis added): "If it appears in a man's genetic code it will code for same-sex attraction, but so long as this happens rarely the allele still has a net evolutionary benefit."

And the LA Times (emphasis added): "Through the epigenome, the results suggest, some facet of life experience likely also primes a man for same-sex attraction."

And the Bisexual Resource Center (emphasis added): "Where does bisexuality begin and end? Human sexuality is sometimes seen as a continuum, with same-sex attractions on one end and different-sex attractions on the other...").

And on and on and on.

"Same-sex attraction" is a neutral, clinical term.  It does not carry political or ideological baggage (and if it does, then so do terms like "gay" and "queer," which must also be abandoned).

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

I will repeat what I said to Calm so there is no confusion on this issue

8 hours ago, california boy said:

It is how it is used that is irritating to the gay community.  I am sexually attracted to the same sex is different than saying I HAVE same sex attraction. But honestly, even saying I am sexually attracted to the same sex is not something that people say.  For most of the rest of the world, when someone is attracted to someone of the same sex, they simply say I am gay.  That is exactly what the word means.  That is exactly how the word is understood to everyone else.